-
Lancet (London, England) Sep 2019Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.
METHODS
We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.
FINDINGS
We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.
INTERPRETATION
There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences.
FUNDING
German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31303314
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31135-3 -
European Urology Focus Jan 2023Two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported overall survival benefit of triplet therapy (androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy agent [ARAT], docetaxel, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported overall survival benefit of triplet therapy (androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy agent [ARAT], docetaxel, and androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) over that of doublet therapy (docetaxel and ADT) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Ranking of therapy options and comparisons between triplet therapy and doublet ARAT and ADT therapy are scarce.
OBJECTIVE
To rank therapy options (triplet vs doublet [docetaxel and ADT] vs doublet [ARAT and ADT]) and address them within formal network meta-analyses (NMAs); subsequently, NMAs were refitted following stratification according to (1) low- and high-volume tumor burden and (2) doublet versus triplet therapy.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature review (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane database) of RCT trials that investigated the overall survival efficacy of systemic treatment in the setting of mHSPC was conducted. The study search and inclusion criteria were in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Ten RCTs (n = 9702) were identified. The NMA focusing on the overall cohort of mHSPC demonstrated that triplet therapies (darolutamide, docetaxel, and ADT, and abiraterone, docetaxel, and ADT) were ranked first and second (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.66; HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46-0.78), followed by doublet therapy (ARAT and ADT) and lastly docetaxel and ADT. Owing to missing data within one RCT, the NMA for low- and high-volume mHSPC focused on nine trials. In high-volume disease, triplet therapy (abiraterone, docetaxel, and ADT) was ranked first (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.71).
CONCLUSIONS
Triplet therapy, consisting of an ARAT, docetaxel, and ADT, ranked first in systematic treatment in mHSPC. Moreover, triplet therapy might result in more pronounced overall survival benefit than doublet ARAT and ADT therapy in high-volume mHSPC.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We compared different systemic therapy options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and concluded that triplet therapy, consisting of androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy agent, docetaxel, and androgen deprivation therapy, seems to be most beneficial for overall survival. Back to top.
Topics: Male; Humans; Docetaxel; Network Meta-Analysis; Androgens; Receptors, Androgen; Androgen Antagonists; Treatment Outcome; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 36058809
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.08.007 -
Emergency Medicine Australasia : EMA Apr 2020Vasopressor medications have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVCs), primarily due to concerns of peripheral extravasation of...
OBJECTIVE
Vasopressor medications have traditionally been administered via central venous catheters (CVCs), primarily due to concerns of peripheral extravasation of vasoconstrictive medications. Recent studies have suggested that vasopressor administration via peripheral intravenous catheters (PiVCs) may be a feasible and safe alternative. This systematic review evaluates the safety of delivering vasopressor medications via PiVCs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review to assess the frequency of complications associated with the delivery of vasopressors via PiVCs. A literature search for prospective and retrospective studies of vasopressor infusions in adults was performed. We included studies of continuous infusions of vasopressor medications (noradrenaline, adrenaline, metaraminol, phenylephrine, dopamine and vasopressin) delivered via a PiVCs that included at least 20 patients. Data on patient factors, cannulation approach, monitoring protocols, vasopressor dosing and dilutions and adverse events were collected and summarised.
RESULTS
Seven studies were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 1382 patients. No study fulfilled all of the validity criteria. Noradrenaline was the most commonly administered agent (n = 702 episodes of administration), followed by phenylephrine (n = 546), dopamine (n = 108), metaraminol (n = 74) and vasopressin and adrenaline (<5 patients). Mean duration of infusion was 22 h (95% confidence interval [CI] 8-36 h). Extravasation occurred in 3.4% (95% CI 2.5-4.7%) of patients. There were no reported episodes of tissue necrosis or limb ischaemia. All extravasation events were successfully managed conservatively or with vasodilatory medications.
CONCLUSIONS
Reports of the administration of vasopressors via PiVCs, when given for a limited duration, under close observation, suggest that extravasation is uncommon and is unlikely to lead to major complications.
Topics: Adult; Catheterization, Peripheral; Humans; Hypotension; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 31698544
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.13406 -
Indian Dermatology Online Journal 2023Melasma is an acquired disorder, which presents with well-demarcated, brown-colored hyperpigmented macules, commonly involving the sun-exposed areas such as the face. It... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Melasma is an acquired disorder, which presents with well-demarcated, brown-colored hyperpigmented macules, commonly involving the sun-exposed areas such as the face. It is a chronic and distressing condition, affecting the patients' quality of life, and has been conventionally treated with "first-line" agents including hydroquinone (HQ) alone or as a part of a triple combination cream (TCC), while "second-line" options include chemical peels, and third line options include laser therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was performed for all topical and systemic treatments for melasma up till May 4, 2021, using the PubMed and EMBASE databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The search terms "melasma" and "treatment" were used to search for the relevant articles on both these databases, and a total of 4020 articles were identified. After removing the duplicate entries and screening the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, we identified 174 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials.
RESULTS
Based on our review, HQ, TCCs, sunscreens, kojic acid (KA), and azelaic acid receive grade A recommendation. Further large-scale studies are required to clearly establish the efficacy of topical vitamin C, resorcinol, and topical tranexamic acid (TXA). Several newer topical agents may play a role only as an add-on or second-line drugs or as maintenance therapy. Oral TXA has a strong recommendation, provided there are no contraindications. Procyanidins, Polypodium leucotomos (PL), and even synbiotics may be taken as adjuncts.
DISCUSSION
Several newer topical and systemic agents with multimodal mechanisms of action have now become available, and the balance seems to be tipping in favor of these innovative modalities. However, it is worth mentioning that the choice of agent should be individualized and subject to availability in a particular country.
PubMed: 38099013
DOI: 10.4103/idoj.idoj_490_22 -
International Journal of Clinical... Apr 2022Background Surgical site infections account for 14-17% of all healthcare-associated infections. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) are complementary strategies developed to... (Review)
Review
Background Surgical site infections account for 14-17% of all healthcare-associated infections. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) are complementary strategies developed to optimize the use of antimicrobials. Aim to evaluate the effectiveness of AMS in promoting adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols in hospitalized patients, reducing surgical site infection rate and cost-benefit ratio. Method This systematic review of randomized clinical trials, non-randomized clinical trials and before and after studies was performed using Pubmed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov, in addition to reference lists of included studies. The risk of bias of studies was measured by the ROBINS-I checklist and the quality of the evidence synthesis by GRADE. Results Fourteen before and after design studies were included. In 85.7% of the studies, AMS was effective in increasing adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols and in 28.5%, there was reduction in surgical site infection rate. Three studies evaluated cost-benefit ratio and found a favorable impact. Eight (57%) studies were at risk of moderate bias and six had severe bias. The evaluation of the synthesis of evidence showed quality ranging from low to very low. Conclusion AMS, such as audit, feedback, education, implementation of a protocol, and a computer-assisted decision support methodology, appear to be effective in promoting adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, reducing surgical site infection rate with a positive economic impact. However, more studies, particularly randomized clinical trials, are needed to improve the level of evidence of available information on AMS in order to favor decision-making.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antimicrobial Stewardship; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34843035
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-021-01358-4 -
Frontiers in Oral Health 2022and studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of some irrigation protocols in reducing the bacterial load in the root canal system. However, standardized protocols...
BACKGROUND
and studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of some irrigation protocols in reducing the bacterial load in the root canal system. However, standardized protocols have not yet been defined for the real clinical context due to many irrigation procedures available.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical endodontic protocols and limitations of irrigating solutions in the disinfection of the root canal system in patients with apical periodontitis.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published until January 2021. Hand searching was also performed. Studies focused on evaluating the effectiveness of irrigating solutions and/or irrigation activation methods in reducing the bacterial load in the root canal system were considered. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) was used to assess the quality of the studies.
RESULTS
Four hundred and twenty eight published articles were identified. After removing the duplicate studies and analyzing full texts, seven RCTs were selected. Two studies compared pure NaOCl with some combination of NaOCl with HEDP and MTAD. Two studies analyzed the antibacterial efficacy of NaOCl and chlorhexidine (CHX). Three studies compared conventional needle irrigation with different irrigation activation methods (PUI, XP-endo finisher, F-file activator, EndoVac activator). The review attained a satisfactory methodology. The main results of each included study were described.
DISCUSSION
Activation methods provide significantly higher biofilm reduction than conventional needle irrigation methods. Combinations of NaOCl with different chelating agents were ineffective in terms of antimicrobial, but it could potentially increase the risk of irrigant extrusion. However, the irrigating protocols were not carefully detailed, especially those regarding the irrigants application time or total volume. The existing literature lacks high-quality studies. The level of evidence is moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
The available data is too heterogeneous to compare and identify the superiority of specific valuable irrigation protocols in each clinical context. Application time, volume, and activation methods should be standardized to determine the optimal irrigating procedures to reduce the bacterial load and ensure higher predictability of the endodontic treatment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
(https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=218555), PROSPERO registration: CRD42020218555.
PubMed: 35174355
DOI: 10.3389/froh.2022.838043 -
JAMA Oncology Dec 2020The treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently changed and become relatively confusing. Head-to-head comparisons between most of the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
IMPORTANCE
The treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently changed and become relatively confusing. Head-to-head comparisons between most of the available agents have not been performed and are less likely to be examined in a prospective fashion in the future. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) is helpful to compare different agents from across different trials.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate comparative effectiveness of different systemic treatments in advanced patients with HCC across lines of therapy.
DATA SOURCES
We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through March 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
We included phase 3 trials evaluating different vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis), checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), or their combinations in advanced HCC, in the first-line or refractory setting.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The reporting of this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The overall effect was pooled using the random effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Outcomes of interest included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
FINDINGS
Fourteen trials (8 in the first-line setting and 6 in the second-line setting) at low risk of bias were included. The 8 trials in the first-line setting encompassed a total of 6290 patients, with an age range of 18 to 89 years. The 5 trials included in the second-line analysis encompassed a total of 2653 patients, with an age range of 18 to 91 years. Network meta-analysis showed the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was superior in patients with HCC treated in the first-line setting compared with lenvatinib (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89), sorafenib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), and nivolumab (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98). In the refractory setting, NMA showed that all studied drugs had PFS benefit compared with placebo. However, this only translated into OS benefit with regorafenib (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75) and cabozantinib (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) compared with placebo. In the NMA of patients with α-fetoprotein (AFP) levels of 400 ng/mL or greater, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showed PFS and OS benefit compared with placebo with no superiority of an active drug compared with any others.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and NMA of 14 trials found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab in combination is now considered the standard of care in the first-line setting in patients with advanced HCC. Regorafenib and cabozantinib are preferred options in refractory patients, with ramucirumab as an additional option in those with levels of AFP of 400 ng/mL or higher. Future trials should focus on other potential combinations and best treatment strategy in patients with prior VEGFi/CPI exposure.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Female; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Liver Neoplasms; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33090186
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4930 -
PeerJ 2022Dental erosion is a chemical loss of the mineralized dental tissue caused by exposure to nonbacterial acids. Different treatment protocols have been adopted with the use...
BACKGROUND
Dental erosion is a chemical loss of the mineralized dental tissue caused by exposure to nonbacterial acids. Different treatment protocols have been adopted with the use of fluoride compounds to promote the formation of a layer of mineral precipitation in eroded lesions.
AIM
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the main treatments for dental erosion.
METHODOLOGY
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and recorded in the Open Science Framework database (OSF) under DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/XMFNZ. The searches were conducted in six electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, Lilacs) and two grey literature sources (Google Scholar and OpenGrey). The eligibility criteria included studies that evaluated eroded teeth under treatment with some topical agent. Risk of bias assessment and qualitative synthesis were performed using the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias modified for studies.
RESULTS
A total of 522 studies were identified, and only four studies that fulfilled our eligibility criteria were included in this review. Among these studies, three were considered to have a low risk of bias, and one to have a high risk of bias. Two studies evaluated the anti-erosion effect of fluoride toothpaste, and the other two assessed the action of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) on the surface of human teeth. Among the products analyzed, CPP-ACP was the only one that promoted a significant increase in enamel microhardness and reduced tooth wear.
CONCLUSION
Based on the studies included in this review, there was no anti-erosion effect after using different fluoride toothpaste. However, it should be considered that one of these studies presented a high risk of bias. On the other hand, studies with CPP-ACP showed anti-erosion efficacy when applied before or after erosive wear.
Topics: Humans; Fluorides; Tooth Erosion; Toothpastes; Tooth Remineralization; Minerals
PubMed: 36389398
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13864 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Oct 2019To compare the treatments used to treat dentin hypersensitivity (DH), based on its efficacy and effect duration. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To compare the treatments used to treat dentin hypersensitivity (DH), based on its efficacy and effect duration.
METHODS
Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials were searched for articles published between 1 January 2008 and 14 November 2018, in English, Portuguese or Spanish, reporting clinical trials, completed and with results. This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42019121986.
RESULTS
Seventy-four randomised clinical trials were included in the systematic review, reporting patients from 16 to 65 years old, with a clinical diagnosis of DH, that evaluate the efficacy of a desensitising product, compared to pre-treatment, used the evaporative method stimulation and the visual analogue scale. These studies evaluated 5366 patients and at least 9167 teeth. Seven follow-up periods were considered corresponding to an immediate, medium or long-time effect. Sixty-six studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Glutaraldehyde with HEMA, glass ionomer cements and Laser present significant immediate (until 7 days) DH reduction. Medium-term (until 1 month) reduction was observed in stannous fluoride, glutaraldehyde with HEMA, hydroxyapatite, glass ionomer cements and Laser groups. Finally, long-term significant reduction was seen at potassium nitrate, arginine, glutaraldehyde with HEMA, hydroxyapatite, adhesive systems, glass ionomer cements and LASER.
CONCLUSIONS
All active ingredients show efficacy in DH reduction in different follow-up times. Only in-office treatments are effective in immediate DH reduction, maintaining its efficacy over time. For long-time effects, at-home treatments can also be used. More standardised evaluation protocols should be implemented to increase the robustly of the results.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Dentin; Dentin Desensitizing Agents; Dentin Sensitivity; Follow-Up Studies; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31216069
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12842 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Jun 2020To develop recommendations concerning the management of male breast cancer.
PURPOSE
To develop recommendations concerning the management of male breast cancer.
METHODS
ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and a formal consensus process.
RESULTS
Twenty-six descriptive reports or observational studies met eligibility criteria and formed the evidentiary basis for the recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Many of the management approaches used for men with breast cancer are like those used for women. Men with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who are candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy should be offered tamoxifen for an initial duration of five years; those with a contraindication to tamoxifen may be offered a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist plus aromatase inhibitor. Men who have completed five years of tamoxifen, have tolerated therapy, and still have a high risk of recurrence may be offered an additional five years of therapy. Men with early-stage disease should not be treated with bone-modifying agents to prevent recurrence, but could still receive these agents to prevent or treat osteoporosis. Men with advanced or metastatic disease should be offered endocrine therapy as first-line therapy, except in cases of visceral crisis or rapidly progressive disease. Targeted systemic therapy may be used to treat advanced or metastatic cancer using the same indications and combinations offered to women. Ipsilateral annual mammogram should be offered to men with a history of breast cancer treated with lumpectomy regardless of genetic predisposition; contralateral annual mammogram may be offered to men with a history of breast cancer and a genetic predisposing mutation. Breast magnetic resonance imaging is not recommended routinely. Genetic counseling and germline genetic testing of cancer predisposition genes should be offered to all men with breast cancer.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms, Male; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Evidence-Based Medicine; Genetic Counseling; Genetic Testing; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Mammography; Mastectomy; Medical Oncology; Predictive Value of Tests; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32058842
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.03120